DEFENCE

Watchkeeper Project

Geoff Hoon: The New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review set out the potential for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) significantly to improve operational effectiveness. UAVs will be a key contributor to network enabled capability and their ability to provide persistent surveillance of the battlefield or theatre of operations, without putting aircrew lives at risk has been demonstrated recently by the US in Afghanistan.
	The central element of the UK's current plans for acquiring UAVs is the Watchkeeper programme, which will provide UK commanders with accurate, timely and high quality imagery. Watchkeeper will be an advanced system integrating air vehicles, sensor payloads and ground control facilities. It will be joined to the wider command and control network through communication systems such as Bowman, allowing information to be passed quickly, providing commanders with an improved understanding of the battle space and ensuring that military effect can more rapidly be brought to bear.
	Four companies were invited to undertake the first stage of the assessment phase and to propose tenders for the second stage. All four submitted strong bids that demonstrated a good understanding of the programme requirements, the technical complexities and the project management requirements. Following detailed consideration of the proposals, on the basis of value for money and demonstration of the potential to deliver the best capability, we have today selected Northrop Grumman ISS International and Thales UK to take forward the remainder of the assessment phase. The Northrop Grumman team includes BAE Systems, Detica Limited, General Dynamics UK Limited, Staysys Limited and Ultra Electronics Limited. Thales (UK)'s team includes Aerosystems International, Elbit Systems Limited and QinetiQ.
	Both selected bidders have indicated that they intend to complete the bulk of work in the UK, although it is too early at this stage to be precise regarding the full extent of the industrial benefits to the UK. These will be explored further in the remainder of the assessment phase, which will culminate by mid-2004 in the selection of a single successful contractor for the demonstration and manufacture phase. As stated in the SDK New Chapter, we remain committed to accelerating the Watchkeeper programme and an initial capability is planned for early 2006.
	The Watchkeeper programme will be complemented by our plans to establish in 2003, a Joint Service UAV Experimentation Programme (JUEP). The JUEP will examine the potential of UAVs beyond the bounds of the Watchkeeper programme by enabling personnel of all three services to gain experience of exploiting different UAV systems with different payloads and configurations in a range of conditions.

Armed Forces Pay Review Body

Geoff Hoon: The 2003 Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has been published today. Copies of the Report are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their clear and wide-ranging Report.
	The AFPRB has recommended an increase in basic military salary of 3.2 per cent. for the majority of personnel and 3.7 per cent. for certain Privates and Lance Corporals and their equivalents (those on the lower pay range). The AFPRB has also recommended increases in the rates of Additional Pay (eg Flying Pay, Submarine Pay and Diving Pay) and in Accommodation Charges. The AFPRB has also targeted Longer Separated Service Allowance (LSSA) and Longer Service at Sea Bonus (LSSB) which are designed to compensate for separation and endorsed MOD's proposal to reduce the Longer Separated Service Allowance qualifying period from 18 to 12 months. The AFPRB has also endorsed the MOD's proposals for Financial Retention Incentives from 1 April for certain Submariners (£25,000), Royal Signals personnel (£2,500, £5,000 or £10,000 dependent on trade) and RAF Airmen Aircrew (£20,000) and a £5,000 "Golden Hello" for Submariners to help address manning issues in these trades.
	The additional cost to the Defence Budget will be £266M. This will be met within existing Departmental expenditure limits.
	The AFPRB's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2003 with the exception of the changes to LSSA and LSSB, which will be implemented with effect from 1 March 2003.

PRIME MINISTER

Senior Salaries

Tony Blair: The 2003 report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries, which makes recommendations about the pay of the senior civil service, senior military personnel and the judiciary, is being published today. Copies are in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their work. The main recommendations of the Review Body are:
	an increase from 1 April 2003 of 2.25 per cent. to the pay ranges for each of the three senior civil service pay bands below Permanent Secretary; a range of base pay awards from 0 to 9 per cent. based on performance; a minimum bonus payment of 3 per cent. or £2,500, whichever is the higher, for those making the greatest contribution; and an uplift to the Permanent Secretaries pay ranges resulting in a new range of £118,750 to £251,500;
	an across the board settlement of 2.75 per cent. for the judiciary in addition to 4.4 per cent. which they will receive as the second and final stage of their 2002 award. The Lord Chief Justice will receive a further £10,000 in addition to this to redress slippage which has occurred over recent years between his post (as the senior full-time serving judge) and that of the Cabinet Secretary (as Head of the Civil Service);
	an increase from 1 April 2003 of 2.25 per cent. in the value of all points on the incremental pay scales for senior military officers.
	The Government has decided to accept these recommendations. Their cost will be met within existing Departmental Expenditure Limits.
	Pay increases for Members of Parliament and Ministers are linked automatically to the increase in pay bands for the senior civil service. Their pay entitlement will therefore increase from 1 April 2003 by 2.25 per cent.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Teachers' Pay

Charles Clarke: The twelfth report of the School Teachers' Review Body is being published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House of Lords and at www.teachernet.gov.uk/Management/pay and performance. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Review Body for their ongoing dedication to the important work of modernising and increasing the flexibility of school teachers' pay arrangements.
	In making their recommendations, the Review Body were required to have regard to the matters set out in the remit letter of 1 August 2002. Copy attached at Annex A.
	The STRB's recommendations and my response are below:
	General pay levels
	The STRB have said the following:
	We recommend the following changes to teachers' salary levels in 2003–04:
	an increase of 2.9 per cent. in the values of
	the main pay scale and upper pay scale for qualified teachers;
	the pay spine for the leadership group;
	the pay spine for Advanced Skills Teachers; and
	the pay scale for unqualified teachers.
	The recommendation above does not apply to teachers in the inner London pay area, whose pay scales are dealt with separately.
	We also recommend that the values of the additional allowances for special needs, recruitment and retention, and management should be increased by 2.9 per cent.
	I propose to accept all these recommendations in full. The 2.9 per cent. increase would be paid in full in April 2003 without staging. Differentiated pay and incentives
	The STRB have said the following:
	London
	We recommend that the existing pay spine and the inner London allowance be replaced by a new inner London pay spine for qualified teachers, with a starting rate of £21,522 [and] a move to £34,002 after crossing the threshold, and in excess of £40,000 at the top of the scale for teachers also in receipt of a management allowance. (At Annex A) We also recommend that the existing leadership group spine and the inner London allowance be replaced by a new inner London pay spine for the leadership group in inner London schools. (At Annex B) We recommend that the pay spine for ASTs in inner London be dealt with in the same way. (At Annex C) We are aware that problems exist in other parts of London and elsewhere and will cover these matters when we report in January 2004. In the meantime, we recommend that both the outer London allowance and the fringe allowance be increased by 10 per cent.
	I propose to accept these recommendations in full. The new pay scales and the 10 per cent. increase in London Allowance will not be staged and will be paid in full from April 2003.
	We are serious about raising standards in London schools. This pay award provides significant pay rises for all London teachers. Last year we identified the problem that there are too few senior, experienced teachers in inner London. I am delighted that the Review Body has supported us in targeting its pay proposals on this group. Because of this targeting, I am also accepting that point 2 of the upper pay scale should be increased to £1,670, because of the potentially beneficial effects in terms of recruitment and retention. But I remain concerned about aspects of the upper pay scale, as I indicate further below.
	The creation of the first ever pay scales for inner London is another bold and far-sighted move by the Review Body, which will help recruitment and retention at all levels of the teaching profession. It also marks a prudent first step in the direction of a more localised approach to pay.
	I also welcome the increased pay for inner London school leaders. Effective school leaders are vital to raising standards in our schools. The Review Body has recognised the need to incentivise recruitment and retention of them for our inner London schools, many of which are facing very challenging circumstances.
	Most London schools will be able to afford this set of recommendations from the increases to the Education Formula Spending Share. Some of the costs in any case fall wholly or mainly to my Department, for example the threshold payment increases. For a small number of local authorities, however, I will be making a special grant available where I determine that genuine affordability issues arise because of higher paybill pressures than in other parts of the country. Based on the data used in the Local Government Finance settlement, the list of those authorities is at annex D.
	I will be providing the STRB with further evidence on the position in outer and "fringe" London, including affordability issues, in time for their further report in January 2004. Shortages of mathematics and science teachers The STRB have said the following:
	We believe that the many recruitment incentives recently introduced should be allowed to bed in with a proper assessment made of their effect. We do not think that the shortage of mathematics and science teachers should be singled out for further special treatment at this stage. More could be done to market and package the existing incentives and we think that it is for Government and the TTA to take the lead on this. I propose to accept this recommendation. I welcome the suggestion about promoting the existing pay flexibilities further and will be considering this in further detail.
	Linking pay progression and performance
	Progress/on on the upper pay scale The STRB have said the following:
	We have taken the consistent view that the key criterion for progression should be "continued substantial and sustained performance and contribution to the school as a teacher". No new, substantial evidence has been produced to cause us to change our view. Drawing on the evidence, we have identified four main barriers to the smooth operation of the system for progression on the upper pay scale. To tackle these we recommend that:
	decisions by schools on progression on the upper pay scale: are based on the criterion of substantial and sustained performance and contribution in the context of continuous improvement in the school; are informed by the performance management system in the school; and take account of the fact that the rate of progression will vary between individuals;
	the Department considers how the head's core role as a manager in judging, distinguishing and rewarding the contribution of individual teachers can be stated explicitly and that the Department discusses with the NCSL how the College can best help strengthen the confidence and capability of the heads and other managers in this area;
	that some thought be given to how schools might be supported in making their systems robust, simple and fit for purpose;
	the Department ensures that adequate funding for progression is sustained in the future.
	I welcome many of the points made by the STRB, including their reiteration of the point that rates of progression should vary between individuals—a point that too many schools have failed to embrace. As with my predecessors, it is also my view that movement up the scale should be on a "progressively more challenging" basis. I shall return to these issues, and the non-statutory suggestions made by the STRB for smoothing the operation of the upper pay scale, in a further wide-ranging consultation later this year.
	Changes to the pay system in respect of proposals in "Investment for Reform"
	The STRB have said the following:
	We need to know more about federations before we recommend changes to the pay system. We think there is sufficient flexibility in the system at present to deal with matters as they arise. Decisions on salary levels should be made locally by LEAs or other relevant bodies. We will return to this issue in our next report when it is likely to be clearer how federations are developing.
	I propose to accept the STRB's decision not to make a recommendation in respect of federations at this stage and their view that existing pay flexibilities for leaders of federations and advanced schools should be sufficient for the present.
	The suggestion that the Leadership Incentive Grant might be used to pay recruitment and retention incentives [for school leaders] appears to support the objectives set for it. We think, however, that it is for schools themselves to consider, taking account of their own particular circumstances, how the grant should best be used.
	I agree with this comment. We are setting parameters for this grant that eligible schools must use it within the principles being set out in guidance—to accelerate improvement, strengthen leadership and stimulate collaboration. We recommend that the pay model of special schools be adopted as a guide for the headteacher of Children's Centres and Integrated Early Years' Centres in appropriate circumstances.
	I propose to accept this recommendation, which applies only in cases where these centres are schools and where the headteacher is in charge of the whole establishment.
	Other issues
	The STRB have said the following:
	Although we agree that a multi-year pay award for teachers would have advantages for stability and forward planning, we consider it would be premature to make recommendations at this stage for a basic pay rise for teachers beyond the year 2003–04. At present it is our intention to make recommendations in January 2004 on pay and conditions which stretch beyond a single year, in the context of our consideration of the longer-term issues.
	I understand this comment but I find it disappointing. For the reasons set out in our written evidence last September, I saw a three year award as potentially very valuable in supporting headteachers when they make the strategic spending decisions needed to deliver on the ground our recent National Agreement on workforce reform. Nonetheless, I look forward to seeing the Review Body's recommendations next January. These will cover the years 2004–05 and 2005–06.
	We recommend that the Department considers, in consultation with the interested parties, whether any changes are needed to the terms and conditions of unattached teachers and provides us with written evidence for our next review.
	I accept that there are conflicting views on the question of unattached teachers. In the light of the STRB's further comments, I have invited all consultees to comment on the principles now, and request them to pass their detailed views to the Department on the points raised in the report about unattached teachers by mid-July 2003. I propose to summarise these views as evidence for the STRB's next review, as recommended.
	To deal with the lack of a central core of basic information that covers the spectrum of the school workforce and can be used for strategic planning and development, we recommend that the Department takes the lead in securing the development and provision of an adequate and ongoing intelligence system on the teaching profession, which includes regular, published up-to-date information.
	The STRB has noted in its report the work which is already in hand in this area. In consultation with its partners, the Department is working on a specification of data items to cover the whole of the school workforce. This infrastructure will require the maintenance of core data items to be transferred to the Department electronically on a scheduled basis. I propose to consider the STRB's further comments in detail, taking into account the information which is already available, and the developments in hand, and respond, as requested, in evidence in the autumn. In the meantime I would welcome comments now from consultees on the recommendation in principle, and by mid-July on the detailed points which the STRB raises.
	It is for the parties to consider and discuss arrangements for payment [of the General Teaching Councils' fee allowance]. We remain clear that arrangements should ensure that all teachers receive the full cost of the fee.
	I propose to accept this recommendation and to require LEAs and governing bodies to continue to make arrangements for payment of a separate sum once a year to all teachers, to cover the cost of the fee. In the light of STRB's comments in their Eleventh Report, this sum will remain at £33.
	Next steps
	I am now initiating consultation with the employer organisations, the teacher associations and other interested parties as required under section 2(1) of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, before I make provision by order for teachers' pay and conditions in 2003–04. I have asked for responses to this consultation letter by Friday 7 March.
	
		PROPOSED TEACHERS' PAY SCALES AND ALLOWANCES FROM 1 APRIL 2003 -- ANNEX A
		
			 Classroom teachers Proposed Main £ Inner London £ 
		
		
			 M1 18,105 21,522 
			 M2 19,536 22,977 
			 M3 21,108 24,573 
			 M4 22,734 26,226 
			 M5 24,525 28,041 
			 M6 26,460 30,000 
			 U1 28,668 34,002 
			 U2 29,730 35,673 
			 U3 30,831 36,774 
			 U4 31,968 37,911 
			 U5 33,150 39,093 
		
	
	
		
			 Unqualified teachers Proposed Main £ Inner London £ 
		
		
			 1 13,266 16,683 
			 2 13,860 17,277 
			 3 14,439 17,856 
			 4 15,039 18,456 
			 5 15,645 19,062 
			 6 16,227 19,644 
			 7 16,824 20,241 
			 8 18,216 21,633 
			 9 19,794 23,211 
			 10 20,979 24,396 
		
	
	
		
			 Allowances Proposed Main £ Inner London £ 
		
		
			 MA1 1,638 1,638 
			 MA2 3,312 3,312 
			 MA3 5,688 5,688 
			 MA4 7,833 7,833 
			 MA5 10,572 10,572 
			
			 R&R 1 1,002 1,002 
			 R&R 2 1,971 1,971 
			 R&R 3 2,985 2,985 
			 R&R 4 4,158 4,158 
			 R&R 5 5,415 5,415 
			
			 SEN 1 1,674 1,674 
			 SEN 2 3,312 3,312 
			 London:   
			 Outer 2,247 Separate scale 
			 Fringe 870 Separate scale 
		
	
	
		ANNEX B
		
			 Leadership group Proposed Main £ Inner London £ 
		
		
			 L1 31,416 37,359 
			 L2 32,205 38,148 
			 L3 33,009 38,952 
			 L4 33,834 39,777 
			 L5 34,677 40,620 
			 L6 35,544 41,487 
			 L7 36,507 42,450 
			 L8 37,344 43,287 
			 L9 38,277 44,220 
			 L10 39,261 45,204 
			 L11 40,278 46,221 
			 L12 41,208 47,151 
			 L13 42,240 48,183 
			 L14 43,290 49,233 
			 L15 44,367 50,310 
			 L16 45,549 51,492 
			 L17 46,599 52,542 
			 L18 47,769 53,712 
			 L19 48,951 54,894 
			 L20 50,166 56,109 
			 L21 51,408 57,351 
			 L22 52,683 58,626 
			 L23 53,988 59,931 
			 L24 55,329 61,272 
			 L25 56,700 62,643 
			 L26 58,107 64,050 
			 L27 59,544 65,487 
			 L28 61,020 66,963 
			 L29 62,535 68,478 
			 L30 64,089 70,032 
			 L31 65,676 71,619 
			 L32 67,308 73,251 
			 L33 68,979 74,922 
			 L34 70,686 76,629 
			 L35 72,444 78,387 
			 L36 74,235 80,178 
			 L37 76,083 82,026 
			 L38 77,964 83,907 
			 L39 79,863 85,806 
			 L40 81,861 87,804 
			 L41 83,904 89,847 
			 L42 86,004 91,947 
			 L43 88,155 94,098 
		
	
	
		ANNEX C
		
			 ASTs Proposed Main £ Inner London £ 
		
		
			 1 29,757 35,700 
			 2 30,288 36,231 
			 3 30,822 36,765 
			 4 31,347 37,290 
			 5 31,878 37,821 
			 6 32,415 38,358 
			 7 32,949 38,892 
			 8 33,480 39,423 
			 9 34,008 39,951 
			 10 34,536 40,479 
			 11 35,070 41,013 
			 12 35,781 41,724 
			 13 36,489 42,432 
			 14 37,194 43,137 
			 15 37,902 43,845 
			 16 38,613 44,556 
			 17 39,321 45,264 
			 18 40,032 45,975 
			 19 40,740 46,683 
			 20 41,448 47,391 
			 21 42,156 48,099 
			 22 43,038 48,981 
			 23 43,929 49,872 
			 24 44,811 50,754 
			 25 45,699 51,642 
			 26 46,581 52,524 
			 27 47,469 53,412 
		
	
	ANNEX D
	London boroughs likely to qualify for grant funding to meet the cost of the 2003 teachers' pay settlement.
	Inner
	Camden
	Hammersmith and Fulham
	Kensington and Chelsea
	Lambeth
	Barking and Dagenham
	Haringey
	Outer
	Bexley
	Bromley
	Croydon
	Enfield
	Havering
	Redbridge
	Richmond upon Thames
	Sutton
	Waltham Forest

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

London Study

Tony McNulty: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have asked the Strategy Unit to look at the long-term issues facing London and its role as the UK's capital and as a world city.
	The Unit will work with the Government Office for London, who are preparing the Government's contribution to the Examination in Public of the Mayor's London Plan, due to begin in March. The Plan, which is concerned first and foremost with spatial development, recognises the need for Central Government and locally elected bodies to co-operate in ensuring London's success. Further Strategy Unit work will focus in particular on the role of central Government and the delivery of Government priorities in the long term. This will require close working with the full range of institutions that contribute to London's success—including Government Departments, the Greater London Authority and other interested parties. Many of the issues are likely to cut across Departmental boundaries.
	My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for the response to the London Plan, will also lead the Strategy Unit work, which will aim to complete in Summer this year. I will take day-to-day responsibility for the project.
	A document setting out the scope of the study is available on the Strategy Unit website www.strategy.gov.uk.

Planning and Access for Disabled People

Tony McNulty: The Government is fully committed to an inclusive society in which nobody is disadvantaged. An important part of delivering this commitment is breaking down unnecessary physical barriers and exclusions imposed on disabled people by poor design of buildings and places. We want the needs of disabled people properly considered as an integral part of the development control process.
	We will shortly be publishing a Good Practice Guide in furtherance of a recommendation by the Disability Rights Task Force (DRTF) that Central Government should offer guidance to local authorities, developers, planners and others involved in the development control process on how to tackle the issue of access for disabled people through the planning system in a more consistent way.
	The guide will reflect the Government's commitment to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 and demonstrate its support for the European Year of Disabled People by encouraging local authorities and developers to consider disabled access to the built environment when formulating development plans. Emphasis will be placed on early and effective consultation between those involved in the development control process and disability organisations. It will also explain the respective roles of the planning system, Building Regulations and the DDA.
	I hope that this guide will raise awareness of the issues, and of good practice in creating environments which disabled people can use with dignity and confidence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Immigration Control

David Blunkett: The Government are fully committed to maintaining effective immigration control and ensuring that access to the asylum process is restricted to those who are in need of protection as demonstrated by the series of fundamental reforms to the immigration, asylum and nationality system over the past 12 months.
	Intelligence has shown that an increasing number of people who have been accepted as refugees elsewhere in the world are coming to the United Kingdom and making asylum applications in false identities. This undermines the integrity of the asylum process, places an unacceptable burden on the system and diverts valuable resources from those in genuine need. This abuse of the system is made easier as under the provisions of the Council of Europe Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees, the holders of refugee travel documents issued by some 21 countries may travel to the United Kingdom without a visa. I have therefore decided to suspend the operation of that agreement. This will mean that from 00.01 hours on Tuesday 11 February all holders of refugee travel documents will require a visa before coming to the United Kingdom.
	This measure will bring the holders of refugee documents issued by the 21 countries into line with those who hold refugee documents issued by all other countries. This change will not prevent refugees who are settled in other countries and who genuinely wish to visit the United Kingdom from doing so. They will simply be required to obtain a visa before coming here. What it will do is act as a deterrent to those whose sole purpose in coming to the United Kingdom is to abuse our asylum system.

Asylum Applications

Beverley Hughes: In July 2000 we announced that we would not be recording postal claims for asylum from persons living in any of the London Boroughs and that they would be required to attend for screening before their claim was recorded and processed. Postal applications have also not been accepted in other parts of the country in cases where alternative arrangements have been established. Postal claims have, however, continued to be made from some parts of the country: in 2001–02 they accounted for 7 per cent. of all asylum claims, and so far in 2002–03 they have accounted for 8.9 per cent.
	As from 8 February anyone wishing to make an asylum claim will need to do so in person, and postal applications for asylum will no longer be accepted. We expect individuals to make their claim at a port of entry, where they will be screened and any request for support will be considered. Where a person in-country writes in by post their purported claim will not be recorded. They will instead be advised to apply in person at Croydon or Liverpool. In the very exceptional case where a person is genuinely unable to attend one of these sites, alternative arrangements will be made to ensure that person can be screened and their claim processed.
	This change is part of our ongoing strategy to tighten up management of the asylum system.